Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This is the first office action on the merits in response to the application filed on 06/04/2024.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of US Application No. 18/614,511 filed on 03/22/2024 is acknowledged. Applicant’s claim for the benefit of US Application No. 17/235,000 filed on 04/20/2021 is acknowledged.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,333,538 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because every limitation in instant claim 1 has a similarly-worded limitation in claim 1 of US Patent 12,333,538 B2. Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,966,921 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because every limitation in instant claim 1 has a similarly-worded limitation in claim 1 of US Patent 11,966,921 B2. For example both claims sets from claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,333,538 B2 and claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,966,921 B2 include “determine a proxy number token having a configuration comprising a first restriction to limit use of the proxy number token to a first transaction type involving first merchant; in response to determining, via a machine learning model, a previously undetected association between (i) …the first merchant with which the proxy number token is configured for use and (ii) …a second merchant with which the proxy number token is not configured for use, generate a modified configuration by modifying the configuration of the proxy number token such that the configuration of the proxy number token is modified to allow use of the proxy number token for the second transaction type involving the second merchant; and in response to receiving a request to use the proxy number token to complete a transaction of the second transaction type involving the second merchant, grant use of the proxy number token for the transaction of the second transaction type involving the second merchant based on (i) the modified configuration of the proxy number token and (ii) the transaction satisfying one or more parameters that are indicated by the modified configuration.”
Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,333,538 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because every limitation in instant claim 2 has a similarly-worded limitation in claim 13 of US Patent 12,333,538 B2. Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,966,921 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because every limitation in instant claim 2 has a similarly-worded limitation in claim 13 of US Patent 11,966,921 B2. For example both claims sets from claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,333,538 B2 and claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,966,921 B2 include “determine a proxy number token having a configuration comprising a first restriction to limit use of the proxy number token to a first transaction type involving first merchant; in response to determining, via a machine learning model, a previously undetected association between (i) …the first merchant with which the proxy number token is configured for use and (ii) …a second merchant with which the proxy number token is not configured for use, generate a modified configuration by modifying the configuration of the proxy number token such that the configuration of the proxy number token is modified to allow use of the proxy number token for the second transaction type involving the second merchant; and in response to receiving a request to use the proxy number token to complete a transaction of the second transaction type involving the second merchant, grant use of the proxy number token for the transaction of the second transaction type involving the second merchant based on (i) the modified configuration of the proxy number token and (ii) the transaction satisfying one or more parameters that are indicated by the modified configuration.”
Claim 3 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,333,538 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because every limitation in instant claim 3 has a similarly-worded limitation in claim 14 of US Patent 12,333,538 B2. Claim 3 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,966,921 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because every limitation in instant claim 3 has a similarly-worded limitation in claim 13 of US Patent 11,966,921 B2. For example both claims sets from claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,333,538 B2 and claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,966,921 B2 include “wherein the machine learning model is configured to: determine, based on the previously-undetected association, an error pattern by correlating a number of errors detected between (i) the first action type involving the first entity with which the proxy number token is configured for use and (ii) the second action type involving the second entity with which the proxy number token is not configured for use, wherein the modified configuration is generated to reduce the number of errors.”
Claim 4 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,333,538 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because every limitation in instant claim 4 has a similarly-worded limitation in claim 15 of US Patent 12,333,538 B2. Claim 4 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,966,921 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because every limitation in instant claim 4 has a similarly-worded limitation in claim 14 of US Patent 11,966,921 B2. For example both claims sets from claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,333,538 B2 and claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,966,921 B2 include “wherein the modified configuration is generated based on a determination that the number of errors detected between (i) the first action type involving the first entity with which the proxy number token is configured for use and (ii) the second action type involving the second entity with which the proxy number token is not configured for use is greater than or equal to a threshold number of errors.”
Claim 5 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,333,538 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because every limitation in instant claim 5 has a similarly-worded limitation in claim 16 of US Patent 12,333,538 B2. Claim 5 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 11,966,921 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because every limitation in instant claim 5 has a similarly-worded limitation in claim 2 of US Patent 11,966,921 B2. For example both claims sets from claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,333,538 B2 and claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 11,966,921 B2 include “receiving, from a remote user device, a prior request of a user to complete a prior action of the first action type involving the first entity; generating, based on the prior request, the proxy number token; and transmitting the proxy number token to the remote user device.”
Claim 6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,333,538 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because every limitation in instant claim 6 has a similarly-worded limitation in claim 17 of US Patent 12,333,538 B2. Claim 6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 11,966,921 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because every limitation in instant claim 6 has a similarly-worded limitation in claim 3 of US Patent 11,966,921 B2. For example both claims sets from claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,333,538 B2 and claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 11,966,921 B2 include “wherein the configuration further comprises a relationship data binding comprising a mapping between the one or more parameters related to an earlier action of the first action type involving the first entity and a given action of the second action type involving the second entity.”
Claim 7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,333,538 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because every limitation in instant claim 7 has a similarly-worded limitation in claim 18 of US Patent 12,333,538 B2. Claim 7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 6-8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,966,921 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because every limitation in instant claim 7 has a similarly-worded limitation in claims 6-8 of US Patent 11,966,921 B2. For example both claims sets from claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,333,538 B2 and claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 11,966,921 B2 include “configuring the proxy number token to be valid for authorization of an electronic transaction for only the first action type involving the first entity; generating the proxy number token based on at least two of: a user identifier, an account identifier, a first entity identifier, a time, a session identifier, a first action type identifier, or a device identifier; and generating the proxy number token according to a hashing algorithm”
Claim 8 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,333,538 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because every limitation in instant claim 8 has a similarly-worded limitation in claim 19 of US Patent 12,333,538 B2. Claim 8 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,966,921 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because every limitation in instant claim 8 has a similarly-worded limitation in claims 2 and 11 of US Patent 11,966,921 B2. For example both claims sets from claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,333,538 B2 and claims 2 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,966,921 B2 include “receiving a prior request to use the proxy number token to complete a prior action of the first action type involving the first entity, wherein: completing the prior action of the first action type involving the first entity comprises transmitting a first electronic signal to a first remote device; and completing the action of the second action type involving the second entity comprises transmitting a second electronic signal to a second remote device.”
Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,333,538 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because every limitation in instant claim 9 has a similarly-worded limitation in claim 10 of US Patent 12,333,538 B2. For example the claim set from claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,333,538 B2 includes “wherein the machine learning model is configured to generate a cluster of previous actions associated with (i) the first action type and the second action type and (ii) initiated by a plurality of user devices, wherein the previously-undetected association between the first action type involving the first entity and the second action type involving the second entity is detected based on the cluster of previous actions.”
Claim 13 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,333,538 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because every limitation in instant claim 13 has a similarly-worded limitation in claim 20 of US Patent 12,333,538 B2. Claim 13 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,966,921 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because every limitation in instant claim 13 has a similarly-worded limitation in claim 17 of US Patent 11,966,921 B2. For example, both claims sets from claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,333,538 B2 and claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,966,921 B2 include “determining a proxy token having a configuration comprising a first restriction to limit use of the proxy token to a first action type; in response to determining a previously-undetected association between (i) the first action type to which the proxy token is configured for use and (ii) a second action type to which the proxy token is not configured for use, determining a modified configuration by modifying the configuration of the proxy token such that the configuration of the proxy token is modified to allow use of the proxy token for the second action type; and in response to receiving a request to use the proxy token to complete an action of the second action type, granting use of the proxy token for the action of the second action type based on (i) the modified configuration of the proxy token and (ii) the action satisfying one or more parameters that are indicated by the modified configuration.”
Claim 14 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,333,538 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because every limitation in instant claim 14 has a similarly-worded limitation in claim 14 of US Patent 12,333,538 B2. For example, both the claim set from claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,333,538 B2 includes “wherein determining the previously-undetected association further comprises: determining, via a machine learning model, the previously-undetected association between (i) the first action type to which the proxy token is configured for use and (ii) the second action type to which the proxy token is not configured for use.”
Claim 15 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,333,538 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because every limitation in instant claim 15 has a similarly-worded limitation in claim 2 of US Patent 12,333,538 B2. Claim 15 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,966,921 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because every limitation in instant claim 15 is recited in claim 17 of US Patent 11,966,921 B2. For example, both claims sets from claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,333,538 B2 and claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,966,921 B2 include “wherein the machine learning model is configured to: determine, based on the previously-undetected association, an error pattern by correlating a number of errors detected between (i) the first action type to which the proxy token is configured for use and (ii) the second action type to which the proxy token is not configured for use, wherein the modified configuration is determined to reduce the number of errors.”
Claim 16 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,333,538 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because every limitation in instant claim 16 has a similarly-worded limitation in claim 3 of US Patent 12,333,538 B2. Claim 17 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,966,921 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because every limitation in instant claim 17 is recited in claim 18 of US Patent 11,966,921 B2. For example, both claims sets from claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,333,538 B2 and claim 18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,966,921 B2 include “wherein the modified configuration is determined based on a determination that the number of errors detected between (i) the first action type to which the proxy token is configured for use and (ii) the second action type to which the proxy token is not configured for use is greater or equal to a threshold number of errors.”
Claim 17 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,333,538 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because every limitation in instant claim 17 has a similarly-worded limitation in claim 5 of US Patent 12,333,538 B2. Claim 17 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 11,966,921 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because every limitation in instant claim 17 is recited in claim 3 of US Patent 11,966,921 B2. For example, both claims sets from claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,333,538 B2 and claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 11,966,921 B2 include “wherein the configuration further comprises a relationship data binding comprising a mapping between the one or more parameters related to an earlier action of the first action type and a given action of the second action type.”
Claim 18 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 7-9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,333,538 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because every limitation in instant claim 18 has a similarly-worded limitation in claims 7-9 of US Patent 12,333,538 B2. Claim 18 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 6-8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,966,921 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because every limitation in instant claim 18 is recited in claims 6-8 of US Patent 11,966,921 B2. For example, both claims sets from claims 7-9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,333,538 B2 and claims 6-8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,966,921 B2 include “wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, effectuate operations further comprising: configuring the proxy token to be valid for authorization of an electronic transaction for only the first action type; generating the proxy token based on at least two of: a user identifier, an account identifier, an entity identifier, a time, a session identifier, a first action type identifier, or a device identifier; and generating the proxy token according to a hashing algorithm.”
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As per claim 1, the closest prior art of record, United States Patent Application No. 20210217014 to Shetty teaches a method, system, and computer program product for co-located merchant anomaly detection obtain prior transaction data associated with a plurality of prior transactions, a first subset being associated with a first merchant, a second subset being associated with a second merchant, each prior transaction being associated with a same merchant location in the prior transaction data, and each prior transaction being associated with a same merchant name in the prior transaction data; extract a plurality of features associated with the plurality of prior transactions from the prior transaction data; and train based on the plurality of features associated with the plurality of prior transactions and labels for the prior transactions, a machine learning model to determine at least one of a prediction of whether a transaction is associated with the first merchant and a prediction of whether the transaction is associated with the second merchant. In addition, United States Patent Application No. 20200005192 to Kumar teaches a machine learning engine for identification of related vertical groupings may be trained using artificial intelligence and machine techniques and used according to techniques discussed herein. A consumer account may be used to process transactions electronically with merchants. The consumer account may therefore be linked to a transaction history, which may be processed to identify the consumer's vertical transaction list for verticals of previous transactions. This may be aggregated for a merchant used by the consumer, and may be weighted before sending back to the consumer. Multiple iterations of aggregating and weighing the merchant and consumer lists may be applied to determine highest ranked verticals for consumers and merchants based on multiple degrees of separation between certain merchants and consumers. Using the weighted lists, verticals may be identified for consumers that the consumer may not have previously transacted within, which may be used to provide a recommendation. In addition, United States Patent No. 10,706,414 B1 to Lieberman teaches a token-based mobile payment device comprising: a memory component that stores tokens and corresponding token use data; an interactive display that receives user input and in response to the user input, displays output data; a processor, coupled to the memory component and the interactive display, configured to perform the steps of: request a token to be transmitted to one or more recipients; identify an amount for the token and one or more restrictions on use of the token; communicating, via a wireless communication network, the token to the one or more recipients; and tracking the token and providing active token use data, via the interactive display. In addition, United States Patent Application No. 20210390552 to Bari teaches a computer-implemented method for real-time automatic authorization of a payment transaction that is independent of an authorization input from a consumer. The method may include receiving first data associated with a consumer, generating a payment transaction classification model based on the first data associated with the consumer, receiving second data associated with the consumer, determining whether to process a payment transaction real-time between the consumer and a merchant independent of an authorization input received from the consumer using the payment transaction classification model and the second data associated with the consumer, and processing a payment transaction between the consumer and the merchant based on determining to process the payment transaction in real-time between the consumer and the merchant. In addition, United States Patent Application No. 20230196358 to Cohn teaches a method for optimizing transaction authorization conversion rates using machine learning includes retrieving payment transaction parameters and authorization results for a plurality of past payment transactions from a database, generating a transaction success model comprising authorization success factors for each of a plurality of payment transaction parameters using a machine learning training phase based on the retrieved payment transaction parameters and authorization results, receiving, at an acquirer processor, a payment transaction from a merchant, modifying one or more parameters of the payment transaction according to the generated transaction success model, and submitting the modified payment transaction to a financial institution for processing.
The closest prior art of record fail to teach or suggest, in the context of the ordered combination of claim 1, determine a proxy number token having a configuration comprising a first restriction to limit use of the proxy number token to a first transaction type involving first merchant; in response to determining, via a machine learning model, a previously undetected association between (i) the first transaction type involving the first merchant with which the proxy number token is configured for use and (ii) a second transaction type involving a second merchant with which the proxy number token is not configured for use, generate a modified configuration by modifying the configuration of the proxy number token such that the configuration of the proxy number token is modified to allow use of the proxy number token for the second transaction type involving the second merchant; and in response to receiving a request to use the proxy number token to complete a transaction of the second transaction type involving the second merchant, grant use of the proxy number token for the transaction of the second transaction type involving the second merchant based on (i) the modified configuration of the proxy number token and (ii) the transaction satisfying one or more parameters that are indicated by the modified configuration.
Claim 2 is analogous to claim 1, and thus is allowable for the same reasons stated above. Claims 3-12 are dependent on claim 2 and are allowable for the same reasons stated above. In addition, claim 13 is analogous to claim 1, and thus is allowable for the same reasons stated above. Claims 14-20 are dependent on claim 13 and are allowable for the same reasons stated above.
A terminal disclaimer may be effective to overcome a nonstatutory double patenting rejection over U.S. Patent No. 12,333,538 and U.S. Patent No. 11,966,921 B2 (37 CFR 1.321(b) and (c)).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COURTNEY JONES whose telephone number is (469)295-9137. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 am - 5:30 pm CST (M-Th).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Neha Patel can be reached at (571) 270-1492. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
/COURTNEY P JONES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3699